UMESAN Vs. EZHUPUNNA SOUTH CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The polling for the election to the committee of the second respondent co-operative society was held from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on 8.2.2009 in terms of Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", following Ext.P1 notification issued by the state co-operative Election Commission. In terms of the averments of the first respondent, the Secretary of that society, the election process, including the declaration of result was over by about 9 p.m. on that day. According to him, the President of the committee which was to demit office and respondents 3 and 6 to 8 requested the Secretary in writing, to convene a meeting of the newly elected managing committee at 11 a.m. on the next day, 9.2.2009, to assume charge. Ext.R1(a) is issued under the signature of those persons expressing their desire to enter on office at 11 a.m. on 9.2.2009 itself. According to the Secretary, he drew up the notices convening the meeting as sought for and handed them over to a sub-staff of the society instructing him to serve the notices on the members of the newly elected committee before 8 a.m. on 9.2.2009. The secretary asserts on the basis of the information of the sub-staff that the petitioners declined to accept the notices and that he, thereafter, requested them over phone to attend the meeting scheduled at 11 a.m. Going by the original of the notices returned by the sub-staff to the secretary, which I have perused, the secretary had issued the notices at 10 p.m. on 8.2.2009 convening the meeting at 11 a.m. on 9.2.2009.

(2.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the first meeting of the newly elected committee convened on 9.2.2009 is without notice to the petitioners and the election of the third respondent in that meeting, as the President of the new committee is illegal and void. The petitioners also seek a further direction to ensure that a meeting of the newly elected committee is convened in the manner prescribed in Rule 38 of the Rules for the purposes stated in that rule. They also seek a direction to the fourth respondent Joint Registrar to take disciplinary action against the first respondent for violation of Rule 38.

(3.) While the petitioners contend that they were served with notices of later meeting, and in the affidavit accompanying I.A. 3259/2009, they plead that the attempt is to keep them away from the meetings consecutively, exposing them to the disqualification, the second respondent contends that in the meetings held on 14.2.2009 and 21.2.2009 the petitioners participated and subscribed their signatures, though they had written in the minutes book that they are boycotting the meetings. The Secretary justifies the President, for having scored off those writings on the premise that only the President and the Secretary are authorized to write in the minutes book.